tythatguy1312

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Moved from another thread- if the ECML had been electrified in the 1960's, and the WCML had to find a stopgap- would we have got the Deltics? Would they have fitted hand-in-glove on the WCML like they did on the ECML? Or would Shap, Beattock etc have taken their toll?

I have no doubt that the Deltics would've at least been tried had the ECML been electrified, their power was (at the time) only exceeded by Union Pacific's turbine giants. However I have my doubts when it comes to their reliability, especially when it concerns their running over the rather hilly WCML. Ultimately they may have gone the same way as the 52's.

14 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I'm afraid that IMHO, all such single-wheel tanks belong in the "who thought THAT was a good idea?" thread

I find it rather inaccurate to say that single driver tank engines were sub-par, but more optimised for light suburban trains and branch workings, where power is ultimately secondary to speed and ease of maintenance. Poland built a rather successful 2-2-2T design, the OKa-1, from 1928 to 1934 and by all accounts they were reasonably good, though the work may have been better done by a 2-4-2t.

I'm rather unsure if this thread deserves a revival at this point but may as well go for 500. So should I question why geared locomotives never caught on in the UK? I'm a staunch lover of American Shays and I can't help but question why Maunsell instead designed a custom & limited series of 0-8-0t's instead of just ordering a few of them.

7 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

What on earth was it for?

Based on my observation of similar locomotives, it was likely for either light suburban work, branch line duty or pulling a director's coach. 2 coupled locos were used for those tasks, and initially performed them admirably before 2-4-2's and 0-6-0's superseded them.

I'm honestly rather unsure if coal-fired fire tube boilers were even suitable for turbine locomotives, given the issues with thermal efficiency, as well as the problems with reliability on turbine-electric locomotives due to coal dust fouling the motors. I rather believe that the General Electric turbines had more potential than other examples, despite being plagued by poor reliability and specialised maintenance requirements. That being said, I'm not blind to the fact that electrification is a far better idea than messing around with Turbines.

On 11/08/2022 at 07:29, Hal Nail said:

All from the same family?

 

I get that this is undoubtedly hilarious but I can't stomach this thread ending on such low brow humour. That's for my twitter arguments.

So what might've happened if other railways followed the Midland's lead for small engines on frequent trains instead of big engines on rarer trains. What possibilities might that create?

4 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Back on subject.

 

4 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

And more.

 

4 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

And even more.

 

I watch this guy's content for the personality and I strongly advise that you take everything he says with a grain of salt. Whilst I appreciate them providing insight on otherwise obscure locomotives, he does it in a heavy-handed fashion which misrepresents some of the information he talks about, such as accusing British Rail itself for designing sub-par locomotives which were built by independent contractors.

On 26/07/2022 at 12:29, MikeOxon said:

Imagine if Churchward had stayed with the 'Kruger' concept - then 'Albion' 4-4-2 might have turned out like this:

I've seen a surprising amount of messed up stuff in my 18 years of life and this is certainly up there

7 hours ago, whart57 said:

Surely the whole point of the BR standard classes was to produce robust locomotives to do a job in the immediate post war conditions until electrification could be achieved. Thoughts of galloping Atlantics for high speed expresses during the mid 1950s can't even have been pipe dreams.

my idea for the Riddles Atlantic wasn't to supplement older 4-6-2's on high speed work, but to displace them to more important freight working whilst a more economical locomotive with similar power handled the work, as well as allowing for widespread replacement of 4-4-0's on what little work was left for them.

5 hours ago, Murican said:

Another question for my planned revisions of my BR Standard steam ideas.

 

What are some proposed ideas for 6-coupled tender locomotives? Like 2-6-2s, 4-6-0s  and 4-6-2s? Part of it was that I just wanted inspiration for when I post my ideas to alternatehistory.com as well.

Luckily all 4 flavours of 6 coupled mainline locos in the UK were built in the UK, though the only notable tender 2-6-2's were LNER built. A 2-6-2 BR Standard could've been good, but I'm not really surprised by the faith in 4-6-0's that BR went with. Honestly what intrigues me more is a 4-4-2 BR Standard, mostly as a fun thought.

To continue discussion of them, a unique possibility that's dawned upon me is what could've happened if Peppercorn, Ivatt, Bulleid or Collett had been trusted with the job of designing the BR Standard range instead of Riddles. There could be some truly fascinating potential here.

3 hours ago, JimC said:

On the other hand, if they can present their opinions and evidence rationally and without rancour or pointless personal attacks then it may serve to inform the rest of us. 

Unfortunately, from what I've seen of debates surrounding Thompson, arguments quickly start as the first point brought up, that of his Pacifics being rather visually unpleasant, is based in the personal aesthetic tastes of the person stating their opinions. Due to the influence of one's own personal taste from the get-go, this leads to debates quickly becoming fiery and emotional. Alas, I'm unsure as to why someone would actively dislike Thompson for aesthetic issues, especially considering how the (admittedly somewhat ugly) BR Standard Class 9f is regularly cited as extremely popular.

On 29/06/2022 at 11:24, Simon A.C. Martin said:

I apologise if this seems brusque

oh this is nothing in terms of bluntness compared to my own defences of Thompson, which contained as much swearing as I felt necessary and no less.

52 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

coal v water ratio make sense?

At that point you might want side bunkers instead of rear ones, as seen on multiple narrow gauge locomotives and the Italian GR 670 tender-tanks.


Speaking of this magnificently ugly thing, I'm honestly a little surprised a cab-forward of this layout wasn't tried for the UK, if nothing else than to see how it'd run. Could've had a niche as a parade piece/inspector's locomotive

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

Beg pardon?

I'll admit I meant engines with the water tank on top of the frames but it's becoming increasingly obvious that my field of locomotive knowledge isn't exactly inclusive of the period from 1850-1900

18 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

or rear tanks

that honestly hits with some Irony considering almost no back tanks appear to have worked in the UK. That being said, at least one seems to be incredibly famous.

Interestingly I've never heard of a 4-2-2 tank, despite the fact that, on the surface, it doesn't sound like a horrendous idea for the early 1860's

and to think it was the Shipwrights themselves (or, more specifically, the Admiralty) who got the planned one over the Tamer vetoed to avoid more than 3 major obstructions

On 01/06/2022 at 18:23, 62613 said:

weren't called "Miners Friends" by their crews for nothing

If I had £1 for every 4-6-0 that was heavy going on coal I'd have enough to make a definitive list of them. I suspect part of it was in the smokebox design for some designs (such as anything Drummond designed), as chimney improvements on the only one of his 4-6-0's to make it to WW2 showed immediate improvement.

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The low-centre-of-gravity fetish had been exploded by then, too.

Ah, the days before common sense and the leading bogie. Surprised an "American style" 4-4-0 was never used to test its stability instead of waiting for Sturrock to do it

37 minutes ago, JimC said:

With my lowered boiler I suspect I may have drawn a footplate height that is actually above the firebox door! I had trouble with access into the cab. Perhaps the tank needs to be set back on the tender so the crew climb onto the tender footplate, not the locomotive one?

So if we do that and raise the boiler back to a more conventional height so the firebox is accessible...



Umm, maybe that's not an improvement! Its starting to make the Kruger's look pretty!

Incidentally, how does one describe that wheel arrangement? I suppose its a 4-2-2-0 of sorts, or perhaps 21A for the continental?

 

 

oh no I'm just too tall to fit in the cab of a Stirling Single or Dolgoch as-is, but that would probably be an improvement for the shorter of the GWR's crews

For an idea that I've certainly brought up before, I still remain fascinated by geared locomotives. Something I'm surprised I didn't bring up months ago is their potential use as heavy shunting locomotives or bankers, given their impressive power at speeds that make a Class 04 look like a HST. Yes Shunting locomotives hardly demand such complexity, but that never stopped Gresley.

2 hours ago, JimC said:

 

Slung some GW components together. Sadly the more I looked at it and the more design problems I picked up the more ridiculous the whole concept became... and if you think that's dreadful you should have seen some of the rejected features!

 

 

I do believe my large height might preclude me from driving such a machine, but it is an impressive beast

5 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

How would it stay on the rails?

Luck.ONLY luck.

4 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

I'm also not suggesting a 'gasser' locomotive

this isn't a remotely serious proposal but a squatting 4-2-0 might be both a speed demon and hilarious to observe